Hartmann's reversal: a comparative study between laparoscopic and open approaches

Han Deok Kwak, Jin Kim, Dong Woo Kang, Se Jin Baek, Jung Myun Kwak, Seon Hahn Kim

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

8 Citations (Scopus)


Background: A reversal of Hartmann's procedure can be performed using either a laparoscopic or open approach. However, laparoscopic reversal (LR) of Hartmann's procedure is challenging. This study was designed to compare the results between open and laparoscopic approaches. Methods: This was a retrospective study of prospectively collected data. We analysed 29 patients who received Hartmann's reversal at Korea University Anam Hospital between April 2007 and September 2014. All patients underwent either LR (n = 17) or open reversal (OR, n = 12). Results: Patient characteristics were similar between the LR and OR groups. There was also no difference in mean operation time (212.5 versus 251.8 min), diversion ileostomy, length of hospital stay, postoperative analgesic days, time to diet resumption (3.9 versus 6.2 days) or complication rate. Although the time to resuming a solid diet was not different between the two groups (P = 0.053), bowel movement occurred faster in LR patients (LR versus OR, 1.8 versus 2.8 days, P = 0.020). Patients in the LR group also had less blood loss during surgery (114.1 versus 594.2 mL, P = 0.026). There were no mortalities in this study. Conclusion: LR of Hartmann's procedure resulted in faster bowel function recovery than the open method. Laparoscopic approaches are feasible even for patients who received an open Hartmann's procedure.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)450-454
Number of pages5
JournalANZ Journal of Surgery
Issue number5
Publication statusPublished - 2018 May


  • Hartmann's procedure
  • laparoscopic
  • open
  • outcome
  • reversal

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery


Dive into the research topics of 'Hartmann's reversal: a comparative study between laparoscopic and open approaches'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this